Dismissed¶12

Bablu and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2020CRLP/7589/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused; writ petition dismissed. FIR 06.07.2020, Case Crime No.513 of 2020, Sections 147/452/323/504/506/379/427 IPC, PS Soraon, Prayagraj; civil land dispute before SDO Tehsil Phoolpur; toilet construction dispute; allegations of house trespass, abuse, beating and theft of movables; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) SCC (Crl.) 426 applied; civil dispute no licence to take law into own hands; investigation required.

What did the court decide?

Prima facie the allegations in the FIR require investigation, and the pendency of a civil dispute did not create a right in favour of the petitioners to take law into their own hands. ¶11

Bablu and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7589 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Bablu And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gambhir Singh, learned counsel for the State.

¶6

This petition has been filed seeking writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 06.07.2020 registered as Case Crime No.513 of 2020, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 379, 427 IPC, Police StationSoraon, District-Prayagraj.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent no.4 has lodged a false and concocted report against the petitioners alleging that on account of a dispute regarding a piece of land, petitioners had abused and threatened the respondent no.4 as per version recorded in the FIR.

¶8

It is petitioner's contention that dispute regarding the piece of land is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, TehsilPhoolpur, District-Prayagraj between the family members of the petitioners as well as respondent no.4. Even the family members of the petitioners have lodged a report against the respondent no.4; that they are trying to construct a toilet over their land and, thus, the nature of dispute is civil which has been tried to be given a colour of criminality.

¶9

Sri Gambhir Singh, learned counsel for the State in his turn submits that the allegations made in the FIR reveals that even

¶10

complainant has accepted that dispute is in regard to construction of a toilet, but the allegations are that despite intervention of the police authorities, the accused persons entered in the house of the complainant, abused her, beaten her and had taken her movable property threatening her with the dire consequences to life and safety.

¶11

Prima facie these allegations require investigation and pendency of a civil dispute did not create a right in favour of the petitioners to take law in their hands.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and applying the ratio of law laid down in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal as reported in (1992) SCC (Crl.) 426 , petitioners have failed to make out a case for quashing of the FIR in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.10.2020 Ashutosh

Bablu and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shambhu Prasad Singh Vs State of U.P. and 24 Others

Manoj Kumar Jaiswal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Seema Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Geeta Devi Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devvrat Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others